The Fall Campaign in the Swing StatesRepublicans hoped to win four
swing states that had gone for Cleveland in 1884—Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, and Indiana. In the final month of
the campaign, both parties focused attention on the two biggest
prizes among the four: New York (36 electoral votes, the
highest number of all states) and Indiana (15, the sixth
highest). In 1884, the small but important Prohibition
Party had been a major reason for the Republican loss of New
York. The Prohibitionist vote tally in state and local
elections had grown significantly in New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut during the years leading up to the 1888 contest.
Since the increase came mainly at a cost to Republican tickets,
the GOP was particularly concerned about the sensitive issue.
In New York, Republicans stalled most Prohibitionist defections
in 1888 by favoring high license fees for alcohol distributors.
In addition, Thomas Platt, the Republican state boss, ensured
party unity, and Warner Miller, the Republican gubernatorial
candidate, ran a vigorous campaign. Miller lost by a slim
margin, but the Prohibitionist vote was down by 11,000 from the
previous state election (although slightly higher than the 1884
total).

For the Democrats, a major problem
in New York was antagonism between Cleveland and Governor David
B. Hill, who presided over the party’s powerful state political
machine. The president chose not to join opponents of
Hill’s renomination (which occurred on September 12), but
neither did he endorse the governor. Nevertheless, Hill
stumped loyally for the national ticket in New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut. Another obstacle was that Tammany Hall,
New York City’s Democratic political machine, focused its
attention primarily on a bitter mayoral race pitting the
incumbent Democrat, Abram Hewitt, against Tammany’s challenger,
Hugh Grant, and Republican Joel Erhardt. Tammany “Boss”
Richard Croker was interested secondarily in reelecting Hill, a
political ally and source of state patronage, leaving few
resources to support the Cleveland effort. Furthermore,
Civil War veterans in New York were vocally unhappy with the
president’s pension vetoes.

In Indiana,
Harrison was determined not to lose his home state. It was
the site of his “front porch” campaign and speaking tours by
Blaine and other prominent Republicans. Both the national
and state campaigns were well coordinated and financed there.
The Democrats in Indiana had to defend the weak record of
Governor Alvin Gray, but were able to attack Harrison for
allegedly not supporting labor. They cited the
Republican’s leadership of troops that put down the 1877
railroad strike and his opposition to banning the importation of
Chinese workers. Indiana was notorious for the buying and
selling of votes by both parties. The only difference in
1888 was that in late October Democrats obtained and publicized
a circular from a Republican national committeeman instructing
Indiana party leaders to make sure that purchased voters cast
GOP ballots. The author claimed the letter was a forgery
and sued for libel. Although the document was probably
authentic, and the lawsuit was dropped after the election, his
reaction seemed to blunt the effectiveness of the Democratic
charge.

The Election ResultsOn November 6, Harrison
managed to win Indiana by less than 2500 votes and to capture
New York by only 13,000 (out of 1.3 million). They were
the only two states to shift their electoral allegiance from
1884 and proved to be the margin of victory. Cleveland
carried the smaller swing states of Connecticut (by just 336
votes) and New Jersey (by 7,149), the Border States, and the
Solid South, narrowly winning the national popular vote by less
than 93,000, 49%-48%. Harrison, however, gained the
presidency with an Electoral College victory of 233-168, winning
most of the Northeast and all of the Midwest and West. The
Republicans had run a well organized, coordinated, and financed
campaign, with an energetic candidate, and a thematic emphasis
on the tariff. By contrast, the Democratic campaign was
poorly organized, coordinated, and financed, with an absentee
candidate, a counterproductive running mate, and a controversial
record to defend.